1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wall Street Journal article on Recruiting

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by buffaholic, Dec 28, 2009.

  1. buffaholic

    buffaholic Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,197
    Likes Received:
    1,634
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610421544186330.html

    There is also commentary at insider.espn (must be an insider to view - premium I guess) from Bruce Feldman. His input was:

    In summary, Feldman makes a case that it's the 2-star and 3-star guys that the big programs (such as Alabama) are relying on much more than the 4-5 star guys. It's called hunger.

    At a minimum, it's a less than perfect science judging teenagers. Some kids are already good enough to be stars at the college level. The WR at Alabama was that way as a true freshmen last year. Many others are given 5-stars because there's no projection needed at least physically. Ryan Miller comes to mind. He was big and strong enough to play in the B12 when he was in High School. Still, development is necessary to get to the next level and that jury's out.

    And yes, I'd take 4-5 star kids in most case over 2-3 star kids. But it seems that our track record is at least about industry average for 4-5 star kids working out or not. And we've had a lot of the 2-3 star kids seemingly developing into players....
     
  2. Junction

    Junction Moderator Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    47,534
    Likes Received:
    1,000,005
    Thanks for linking that. I saw Feldman's piece earlier and it occured to me that the debate over the value of star rankings for recruits is one we have simply not had often enough around here. But I was too lazy to link the WSJ article he was drawing from.... :thumbsup:
     
  3. Duff Man

    Duff Man Moderator Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    39,726
    Likes Received:
    4,728
    But where has that development of 2* and 3* players gotten us?

    The biggest issue with that article is singling out USC, the same team that has played in six straight BCS bowls prior to the 2009 season, as the reason rankings do not matter.
     
  4. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,522
    Likes Received:
    4,514
    By all accounts, with the talent they have at USC, they should have played in 6 straight BCS Championship games. A team of superstars doesn't always perform to it's potential. In fact, I believe it rarely does. I think USC would do well to go and get a few 2* players just to keep it real in the lockerroom.
     
  5. The Guest

    The Guest Guest

    Thanks for the recruiting story, but I prefer Terra Firma's view on things...
     
  6. buffs04

    buffs04 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,488
    Likes Received:
    223
    There are some flaws with the logic in this article.
     
  7. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,502
    Likes Received:
    609
    Here is a rebuttal to that Article... I think the article in the WSJ was a guy being very limited in his analysis.
     
  8. absinthe

    absinthe Ambitious but rubbish. Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    25,890
    Likes Received:
    1,508

    While i agree with the assessment about the sample size i am VERy confused by how that table supports anything he is arguing? the top for schools have 9 BCS births, but OSU, OU, and 'Bama have less than half the total top 100 recruits and just as many births as the top 4.
     

Share This Page